tv CNN Tonight With Don Lemon CNN January 21, 2020 10:00pm-11:00pm PST
will be another amendment still tonight. that brings up a couple observations. one, chief justice john roberts who jumped at that opportunity to say enough is enough. he has to be in court at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. so whenever this ends, he has to do a second job early after sitting and listening to 12 or 13 hours of what would never pass in his courtroom for any kind of argumentation of civil discourse. that is to be september in mind. fatigue of this process. i have andrew mccabe next to me. that's who i'm looking at. five of the senators are over 80. 27 of 100 of the senators are over 70. 39 of the 100 senators are above 60. so you have 71 of them out of
100 are somewhere between -- 66 is the average age. no disrespect but this is a long day. the camera work here is being done by the supreme court. it is the first time by the senate. it is the first time i've been envious of the shooting skills of c-span. because we don't get to see the senators in their seats that often. it is hard to know how they're had doing the process. there is a chance that he have day may go as long as this one. maybe not into the wee hours but 10, 12 hours of this. the role of fatigue is something that many will dismiss. is there significance? >> absolutely. you hit the nail on the head. especially across the first six days of the opening statements
which will go at eight-hour lengths for three days on the house side and then three days on the president's side. anyone who has sat in a series of classes and really tried to pay attention. you can only main feign level of paying attention, that clearly for a limited period of time. you have a large group of people who are not used to sitting without telephones, without access to staff without multiple inputs, really just focusing on the speeches their hearing over the course of now, we've been doing this for now probably over 12 hours. >> while this is largely introductory, this is first time most people have heard this. this was a really interesting moment to see the chief justice
who has to be at work today admonish. they finished the roll call. the democratic leader is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. i send an amendment to the desk on provide for a vote of the senate on any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents after the question period. and i waive its reading. >> the objection of the waiving of the reading? >> i withdraw my request for a waiver. >> does any senator have an objection to the waiving of the reading? there is an objection. yes. the the clerk will read it. >> the senator from new york, it
is amendment number 1292 on. page 3, line 8, strike four hours and insert two hours. on page 3, line 10, strike the question of and all that follows through rules on line 12. on page 3, line grown, insert any such motion after decide. on page 3, line 15, strike whether and all that follows through documents on line 17. on page 3, line 18, strike that question and insert any such motion. on page 3, line 23 and 24, strike and the senate shall decide after deposition which witnesses shall testify. and insert, and then shall testify in the senate.
>> the amendment is arguable for the parties for two hours equally divided. are you a proponent or opponent? a proponent or opponent? mr. schiff, you may proceed and may reserve time for rebuttal. which makes two important changes to the mcconnell resolution. the first is the mcconnell resolution does not actually provide for an immediate vote even later on the witnesses that we have requested. what it says is that at some point after essentially the trial is over, after you've had the arguments of both sides, the 16 hours of questioning, then there will be a debate as to
whether to have a vote and a debate on a particular witness. so there is no even guarantee you'll get a chance to vote on specific witnesses. all the resolution provides is you're going to get an opportunity to vote to have a debate on whether to ultimately have a vote on a particular witness. this would strip that middle layer. it would strip the debate on whether to have a debate on particular witness. if my colleagues for the president's team are making the point, well, you'll get the opportunity later. the reality is we may 97 get to have a debate about particular witnesses. you've heard the discussion of four witnesses. there may be foos we're able to get documents that we should also call. but will you ever get to hear a
debate about why a particular witness is necessary? you may only get a debate over the debate. and so this amendment would remove that debate over a debate over a particular witness. the other thing it would provide is that you should hear from these witnesses directly. the mcconnell resolution says they'll be deposed and that's it. it doesn't say you're ever actually ever going to hear these witnesses for yourself. which means that you as the triers of fact may not get to see the credibility of these witnesses. you may only get to see a deposition or a deposition transcript or maybe a video of a deposition. i don't know. but if there is any contesting of facts, wouldn't you like to hear from the witnesses yourself? the reason it was done this way in the clinton case, and again,
all these people had been deposed or testified before. the reason it was conwas because of the salacious nature of the testimony. nobody wanted witnesses on the senate floor talking about sex. as i said earlier, i can assure that you will not be the issue here. so in whatever degree there was the need for live testimony because of its salacious nature, that's not the case here. so this resolution makes those two important changes. and i would urge your support of it. >> mr. cipollone? >> thank you, mr. chief justice.
>> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, good morning. i will be very brief on this. we strongly oppose the amendment. we support the resolution as written. we believe the resolution as to the two areas manager schiff discussed, the resolution appropriately considers those questions. and strikes the appropriate balance in the senate's discretion as the sole trier of impeachments. the rules in place here in the resolution are similar to the clinton proceeding in that regard. in the sense that this body has the discretion as to whether to hear from the witness live. if there are witnesses at some point. or not.
but more fundamentally, the preliminary question has to be overcome which is, they will have two hours, four hours total, two hours for them, to try to convince you after the parties have made their presentation, which they will have 24 hours to do. as to the preliminary question of whether it shall be an order to consider and debate any motion to subpoena witnesses or documents. that was precisely the clinton ruse. that was -- it is stronger than the clinton rules. and those rules, as i've indicated before, passed 100-0. we think that the resolution strikes the appropriate balance and we urge that the amendment be rejected. i yield my time. >> thank you, counsel.
>> mr. schiff, you have 57 minutes. >> don't worry. i won't use it. if there is any veneer left to camouflage where the president's counsel is coming from, the veneer is completely gone now. after saying we'll have that opportunity to have a vote on these witnesses later, now they're saying, no. no, no. you will just have a debate on whether to vote on the witnesses. the camouflage was then to begin with but it is completely gone now. they want to get to the generic debate about whether to have a debate on witnesses and have you vote it down so you 97 actually have to vote to refuse these witnesses. although you've had to do that tonight. i don't see what that purpose
serves, except i suppose the put one more layer in the way of accountability. but the veneer is gone. all the questions about you'll get opportunity, the question is when. no, you'll never get a chance to take that vote. and what's more the vote on this resolution says that you don't want to hear from these witnesses yourself. you don't want to evaluate the credibility yourself. may be you'll let them be deposed but you don't want to hear them yourself. you don't want to see that. i don't know what the rules of the depositions will be. maybe the public won't ever get to see what happens in those depositions. we released all the deposition
transcripts from our depositions. the secret 100 person depositions. we have no idea what rule they'll adopt for these depositions. maybe the public will see them. maybe they won't. mabel you'll get to see them. i assume you'll get to see them. at the end of the day, this is a vote you'll have to cast that says, no. i don't want to hear them for myself. no, i don't want it for myself. this is after all only a vote. on a case, only a trial about the impeachment of the president of the united states. you have a bank robbery trial, a trial over a piece of mail. you'll get live witnesses. but in the impeachment of the president of the united states, we don't need to see their credibility. is that what the american people expect of a fair trial? i don't think it is.
i yield back. >> mr. chief justice? >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i move to table the amendment. >> is there a sufficient second? >> there is. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. ms. baldwin. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn -- >> they are doing roll call right now. this is another vote on an amendment. this was about future subpoenas and in what form body will get to see witnesses. and this is like many others, a point of contention for democrats. just to remind you again. it is almost 1:15 eastern. they've been going certainly for over 12 hours now. you have is the chief justice who just arguably made the moment of the day admonishing both sides to observe the
decorum of civil discourse in the senate. he has to be at work today in eight hours plus. so this is going to wear on people. you have 66 out of 100 senators are over 60 years of age. this is not about age. it is not to disparage anyone but the fatigue is significant. and this is just the procedural stage. let's check in with jeff zeleny as they do the roll call. a vote that is expected to go down along party lines, as has every other. what are you hearing? >> the vote will go down if all the senators are still present. we believe they are. it will fail 53-47 as the others have. we're getting some reporting and insight as to what is actually happening. the cameras are limited in what they're showing. jeremy, one of our fine reporter on the hill team, is in the senate chamber and describing
some of this. he speaks senators on both sides are getting quite restless during that recent debate there. had they were gathered on both sides, the republican side, the democratic side, amy klobuchar was talking. bernie sanders was wandering around as well. there is no question that senators are reaching the he said of the line here. my question is, is senator schumer doing the right thing today? or is he overreaching by forcing this long discussion on debate, amendment after amendment. is he giving up some of the good will he was hoping the get from some four republicans that he may need later on in the trial? we do not know the reaction to susan collins or mitt romney when they were sitting there watching will the chief justice admonished there. what effect it has on the long term should be considered.
>> the impact of the strategy, we're showing you just so you can get a sense. these are not our cameras. the accommodation is the senate, showing the senate gallery. so you're not getting as precise a view as we would like the see of how the men and women, many of what advanced age are handling in not the most comfortable circumstances, hour after hour of argumentation. this can go on for weeks and if a seeing can have a lot of effects. i'm not talking about anything severe or physical crisis but how much you focus, what starts to grate on you. that goes to your point. what is the best argument for schumer? the best argument is america is being introduced to this tonight. many of us have been observing it for most of recent history. but many have not.
life is a lot bigger for most americans. they're making the case. schumer's play is this. taken at its best. i'll go at the republicans with he have one of these. one, to prove to the american people the breadth of what has been denied. and what is supposed to be a fair process. he have name. every source of documentation. and i'm going to go and hope that what could be seen as removing good will, jeffrey, actual compounds the importance of what to deny. >> the audience says, those few republican senators, let's take a step back here. it was a remarkable move earlier in the day when it was a group of mainly moderate republican senators, but not all. rob portman of ohio certainly conservative, leading the way. they do want a fair trial. and get mag jort leader mcconnell to make the
concessions earlier was key. >> the nays are 47. the amendment is tabled. democratic leader is recognized. >> i send an amendment to the doeks allow adequate time for written response business any motions by the parties and i ask that it be read. >> the clerk will report. >>er is, from new york, amendment number 1293 on page two, beginning on line ten. strike 11:00 a.m., january 22, 2020. and insert 9:00 a.m. thursday, january 23, 2020. on page two, line 15, strike wednesday january 22, 2020, and insert thursday, january 23, 2020. >> the amendment is arguable for the parties for two hours, equally divided. manager schiff, are you a
proponent of this amendment? are you a proponent of this amendment? >> i am a proponent. >> i'm an opponent. >> you may proceed and reserve time for rebuttal if you wish. >> thank you. this is quite simple. under the mcconnell resolution, the parties file motion tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. written motions, that is, and the responding party has to file their apply two hours later. that really doesn't give anybody enough time respond to a written motion. when the president's team filed, for example, their trial brief, it was over 100 pages.
we at least had 24 hours to file our reply. in the clint trial, if we were interested in the clinton case, they had 41 hours to respond to written motions. we're not asking for 41 hours but we are asking for enough time to write a decent response to a motion. that's essentially it and i would hope that we could agree on at least this. i return the balance of my time. >> mr. sekulow? >> thank you, mr. chief justice. members of the senate. it seems like tomorrow is a day off according to your procedure. is that correct? today is tomorrow. tomorrow is today. we're toward proceed. we will respond to any motions. we would ask the chamber to reject this amendment.
>> we yield back our time. >> mr. chief justice hxt table amendment. >> is there a sufficient second. >> there is. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. >> all right. as they are doing what now has become familiar to us, they're going through roll call and see what the vote is on this amendment, about the timing of written response. why bring this up? because throughout the duration of the proceeding, they are trying to assure fairness by making sure if a motion is made, you get time answer during the clinton impeachment. it was about twice as long and they're trying to make it closer to what that was. it is tected sag saun ba.
>> it is expected to go down like every other amendment. the move here by schumer in putting forward all these amendments once, earlier in the night, mcconnell said, do you want to bundle them? let's do them all at once. schumer said no. will america needs to know each and every one of these things that has been denied. >> one of the biggest moments was when chairman nadler was giving the long argument for why he believes there should be a speem for john bolton. that is clearly the case. the former national security adviser, mr. bolton, has agreed to testify if subpoenaed. so that argument was certainly worth and the senators i'm told were paying more attention to that. at least a couple of the
republican senators who are interested, perhaps, in having them testify. the exhaustion factor, they'll get over it. if it is the government shutdown, the health care vote, senator john mccain gave his famous thumbs down about 2:00 in the morning. i think the sems of good will, how are these senators leaving the chamber this evening. and there is no doubt democrats are still trying to get some cooperation from republicans. so it is what they told manu raju more than 12 hours ago. that they are willing to have an open mind here. and hoping that they don't sort of blow it. we'll see. we'll talk to them as they come out. one question we'll be seeing as we go into the daylight hours. was this a smart strategy from
senator schumer? we'll see. >> romney also said to manu, if everything is an outrage, then nothing is an outrage. it should be relevant. so the idea is you need some of these people. not the house, the senate. there are some open minds. and with all of these now, keeping everybody up so late. the chief justice has to be back in seven hours. >> had this is because mitch mcconnell and the white house wanted a condensed timetable. what i think senator schumer has done effective when i the house managers in particular, adam schiff, they really made the case with the documents amendment. that it is the republicans
obstructing justice with the president. i think they did a good job. i think these amendments which are more process oriented, trying on get the senate to adjust timing on votes. i think that begins to drain the effectiveness of some of what they've accomplished. i do think for a couple of hours there, they were making a good case that in fact when republican senators were voting down compelling these witnesses to come, that they were going against the will of the people. >> bolton is interesting. certainly there is high interest but it must be said. mr. bolton has tried to have it both ways here. there is nothing stopping him from doing an interview with us right now. talking to the media. he doesn't have to be a subpoena to speak. so let's go back now to the senate chamber and see what has
happened. >> is there any senator in the chamber who wishes to change his or her vote? if not, the yays are 52, the nays are 48. the amendment is tabled. the democratic leader is recognized. >> mr. chief justice i send an amendment to the desk on help ensure impartial justice by requiring the chief justice of the united states to rule on motions to subpoena witnesses and documents. i ask that it be read. this is our last amendment of the evening. >> the clerk will report. >> the senator from new york, mr. schumer for mr. van hollen, pro poses an amendment. on page 3, lien 20, insert the presiding officer should rule any witness or document that a senator or a party moves to subpoena. if the presiding officer
determines witness or document is likely to have probably i have the evidence relative to either article of impeachment before the senate after order. >> it is arguable by both parties for two hours. are you an opponent or proponent? mr. schiff, you may proceed and reserve time for rebuttal. >> senators, this he said a would provide that the presiding officer should rule to authorize the subpoena of any witness or any document. excuse me. the presiding document shall rule to authorize the subpoena
of any witness or any document that a senator or a party moves to subpoena if the presiding officer determines that witness is likely to have probative evidence relevant to either article of impeachment. it's quite simple. would it allow the chief justice, would it allow senators the house managers, the president's counsel, to make use of the experience of the chief justice of the supreme court to decide the questions of the relevance of witnesses. and either party can call the witnesses. if we can't come to agreement on witnesses ourselves, would it pick a knot ral arbiter. that being the chief justice of the supreme court. if the chief justice fints that a witness would be probity, that witness would be allowed to testify. if he finds it would be immaterial, that witness would not be allowed to testify.
it still maintains the tradition, if you don't agree with the chief justice, you can overrule him. you have the votes and you can disagree with what the chief justice has decided. but would it give this decision to a neutral party. it will be done in line that the schedule that the majority leader has set out. it's not the schedule we want. we don't think it makes any sense to have the trial and then decide witnesses. if we have to do that it way, and it looks like we are at least a neutral arbiter decide. much as he may loathe the task. whether a witness is relevant or a witness is not. and we would hope if there is nothing else we can agree on tonight, that we could agree to allow the chief justice to give
us the benefit of his experience in deciding which witnesses are relevant to this and which are not. with that i reserve the balance of my time. >> mr. sekulow? >> mr. chief justice, members of the senate, and with no disrespect to the chief justice, this is not an appellate court. this is united states senate. there is not an arbitration clause in the united states constitution. the senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. we oppose the amendment. mr. schiff, you have 57 minutes remaining. >> has the good note to conclude on. don't let it be said we haven't made progress today. the president's counsel has just acknowledged for the first time that this is not an appellate court. i'm glad we have established that. this is trial. not the appeal.
the trial ought to have witnesses. there is no court below because as the counsel has just admitted, you are not the appellate court. but i think what we've also seen here tonight is they not only don't want you to hear these witnesses. they don't want to you hear them live, they don't want to you hear them deposed, they don't want a neutral justice to weigh in. pretty hard to argue john bolton is not relative here. pretty hard to argue that mick mulvaney is not relevant here. i just watched that videotape where he said he discussed this with the president. they're contesting it. pretty relevant. what about humidinter biden? he's probably the real reason they don't want the chief justice to rule on the materiality of the witness. what can hunter biden tell us about why the president withheld
hundreds of millions of dollars from ukraine? i can tell what you he can tell us. nothing. what does he know about why the president wouldn't meet with president zelensky? he can't tell us anything about that. what can he tell us about these defense department documents or omb documents? what can he tell us about the law? he can't tell us anything about that. because his testimony is immaterial and irrelevant. the only purpose calling him is to succeed in what they failed to do earlier that is to smear requesting after his sob west trust the supreme court justice of the supreme court to make that decision. that he's not a material witness. this isn't fantastic football here.
we're not making trades. we shouldn't be. we'll trade you one completely irrelevant and material witness that allows us to smear the president's opponent in exchange for wurns that are really relevant. that you should hear. is that a fair trial? if you can't trust the chief justice appointed by a republican president to make a fair decision about materiality, i think it betrays the weakness of your case. >> i'll be honest. there has been some apprehension on our side about this idea. but we have confidence the chief justice would make a fair and impartial decision. that he would do impartial justice. and it is something that my colleagues representing the president don't.
they don't want a fair judicial ruling about this. they don't even want one that you can overturn. because they don't want a fair trial. so we end where we started. with one party wanting a fair trial and one party that doesn't. one party that doesn't fear a fair trial and one party that is terrified of a fair trial. i yield back. >> i make a motion to table amendment and ask the yays and nays. >> is there a sufficient second? the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. ms. baldwin. mr. -- >> a couple of interesting developments in the last few minutes. the amendment before this one,
which is a simple matter of how much time. it was the first vote of the day where we didn't have a straight party line vote. arguably one of the best arguments of the day. one republican crossed the line. who? senator collins from maine voted not to table the amendment. nay means don't table it. let's vote on it for real. so she crossed the line. the next argument, it was the most interesting political play of the day. the amendment is, you and i are going to fight left and right about the witnesses. and whether they are relevant. instead letting you overpower me
with the numbers, let's have this guy. >> i thought it was a smart way to end the day. it says, look. you have a republican appointed chief justice and a republican dominated supreme court at this point and you don't want to us decide? fine. you don't want this trading back and forth of witnesses? fine. if senators can't agree on that, then according to the house managers, then they really don't want an impartial analysis. they want a part sandal analysis of witnesses. >> it created a pickle. that is an argument that's allowed. this is about us. not him. you have to reject the chief justice of the supreme court. michael zeldin is joining us. a brilliant lawyer.
it puts the senators, the republican senators in an interesting position. they have high ground as jay sekulow came out. he didn't say at this time right way. what he meant to say was, the senate controls you. the way he said it created an opportunity. he said this is not an appellate court. he came out and said finally. we've made progress. that this is the trial court. you should be establishing a record. we should be having witnesses. that's a little bit of an insider's game. how did it play for you? i thought first schiff has dawn good job today. both in laying out the merits of the case and the process points around fairness. it authorizes the chief justice to rule on matters of evidence.
here they have said, these pre-existing rules that allow the chief justice to rule on evidence should be moved over to the justice on relevancy. it was a small step but a very smart step. it leaves them in the position of saying we don't trust the chief justice. i liked it. >> we'll see nowful let's head into the gallery and see what the chief justice has to tell us. >> many sullivan. mr. thune. mr. tillis. mr. toomey. mr. udall. mr. van hollen. >> the last few votes here. i don't want to police the chief justice given how he is central in this particular amendment. so they'll finish the roll. they tabulate. he then announces. the chief justice has been party
to two of the bigger moments of the night. let's listen. he admonished both sides for civil discourse and he referred to back in the day, in the early 1900s, when pettyfogging -- >> is there anyone in the claim better who would like to change his or her vote? the amendment is tabled. >> chief justice? >> the majority leader is recognized. >> i would like to say on behalf of all of us, we want to thank you for your patience. >> comes with the job. on scheduling, assuming there are no more amendments, the next one will be on adoption of the
resolution. and then all senators should stay in their seats until the trial is ajournaled for the evening. >> on resolution 483. this is a sufficient second. okay. the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. alexander. >> all right. now that we've will the debate on all the amendments, they will have the vote on whether the resolution passes, which is the overall set of ruse and procedures for this going forward. the chief justice there, when thanked by the majority leader for his patience, said it comes with the job. what a job he will have. he will be in court at 10:00 this morning.
it is 1:41 right now. not much time for him and who knows how long this will continue. politically, hillary, the play for schumer was, i'll put this in front of people's faces all night and let them see what is denied. the plus is that. the negative is senators who are listening, and may be malleable maybe now frustrated or upset. >> i don't think there was a realistic chance that any of these senators would go against mitch mcconnell or donald trump, so i think what chuck schumer was doing was playing to the gallery, to the public, saying let me show you all the different ways where the republicans are preventing you from getting the full story. by doing it vote after vote, he was slowly building his case. that is to play to the public. and we've seen the subtle shift over the last week in the public
opinion around people actually believing this is a trial. there ought to be witnesses. and i would be curious. your thought on this. i would like the get inside john robert' head. he was a trial judge before he was chief justice of the supreme court. he has to be thinking, this isn't how trials are supposed to go. >> no. you'll remember this very well. then chief justice rehnquist, a mentor to roberts, was kind of amused. at one point the sergeant of arms had to be told about playing poker in the back room. the idea of it being a straight party line vote that the chief justice can't negotiate who is relevant and who isn't. how does that play? >> so i think it plays in
unknowable ways. we don't know what the votes will be. i think this is more a matter of showmanship by the democrats to say, look, you don't even trust the supreme court justice to make a ruling on relevancy of witnesses. and that i think resonates with people who are want a fair trial. we've got this benjamin button trial here. we're starting backwards and going forward. and it doesn't make any sense. and it would have been nice for the supreme court justice to have a role to play but the republicans don't want it. they just don't want it. >> if you are going on wind one a result like young brad pitt, it would be much more satisfactory here. i think one of the questions for the people watching to the extent they want to consume this duration of political argument, what is it going to be like
tomorrow when they laid the arguments out today? >> quite similar to what we heard today. the odd thing is the house managers laid out their argument quite compellingly. i guess it is the repeat it, repeat it, repeat it and home people accept it. they have no, nothing really additionally to add to what they said today. >> let's go back to the floor and see them conclude this vote. we're waiting for this to wrap up. this is the big vote of the day. will it be adopted. the amendments were to change this resolution. tally has been done and now we'll see what the pronouncement is.
i think that's chuck schumer at the top of the room. he now seems to be conversing with somebody else. mcconnell was standing there. i don't think he's speaking directly to the senate. the room is di i'ded. you have democrats on the right, republicans on the left. michael, any guess as to what they're doing? >> i don't know. i think they're trying to figure out housekeeping matters. they're going to have this vote. it will pass along the 53-47
lines. and then they have to figure out, how are they opening the trial? who will say what to whom and when? and then figure out how they'll last. they have the 24 hours over a three-day period. they can run it 12 hours today. i think that there is some house sort of keeping stuff that has to be taking place between these senators at the moment. they have ordinary business to take to tomorrow as well. so i think there's hopefully some compromising going on around san diego and procedures so we have not the need to sit through 12 more hours of testimony tomorrow. >> that's what mcconnell originally wanted. four days of argument. with clinton it was, four days each. six hours a day. 24 hours is the allotment by the rule.
on that's about how much you have to take in each day. >> this was a pretty abusive day for -- >> let me do this. sorry to cut you off but let me to go jeff zeleny and see if he has better sense of what's going on in the gallery. >> chris, it is as michael was saying, a housekeeping matter. you did see senator schumer reaching over and speaking brief when i the senate majority leader. this is a fascinating shot. if we look at this at the back of the chal better, you see amy klobuchar back there. you see all the senators present. they had been walking around the senate floor. they are trying to essentially decide the rules of the road here. what is going to happen tomorrow. the timing of this. at the end of an acrimonious debate. and this senate has seen many angctiongrcrimonious days.
when you see how close the sides are. after such a long impeachment inquiry here. the president's lawyers have never come face to face with the house managers. they are just a few feet away. you heard the chief justice ad mondayish both sides. right now, i think a lot of attention is dissipating but they are doing some type of housekeeping. it is fobl vote is not complete because someone may have stepped out. this is unusual in some almosts. with the majority leader standing up there, he is beginning to read the roll call here. thisoverall resolution to establish the rules of the trial going forward. that's what this bench mark is here. let's just wait a little bit longer and we'll try to see if our hill team will has any more information about what the argument here is.
it is interesting just to watch the peace and quiet, actually, on the senate floor at this very early hour here today in washington. >> peace and quiet known as exhaustion. >> here we go. >> actually, that explains it there. senator martin heinrich of new mexico clearly had not voted yet. so the senators were waiting -- >> is there anyone in the chamber who would like to change his or her vote? if not the ayes are 53, the nays are 47. the resolution is agreed to. the majority leader is recognized. >> i ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 1:00 p.m. wednesday january 22nd and that this order also constitute the adjournment of the senate. >> without objection, so ordered. the senate is adjourned. >> all right. so there you have it. they've adopted the rules of the road going forward. this odd delay here at the end
was because one of the senators wasn't in the room. now, that is not something that has been unusual today either. this is tough, over 12 hours in there. we had earlier on a senator was called out, a republican senator was called out by minority leader chuck schumer for not being in the room because she was doing an interview over on fox tv. these are little things. the bigger moment to recognize is that we now know the rules. and obviously the democrats are against them. almost every amendment vote today was done along party lines. there will be no 100-0 type of agreement and bipartisan any sense of this being bigger than that. that trend seems to stay. what's a little different is the chief justice, as jeff zeleny pointed out to you, things can get rough in the senate. it's just usually supposed to be better than the house. and it was interesting for the chief justice on day one to
admonish both sides maintain civil discourse, no staring at each other, no high voices with each other. be civil here. and he cited an example where pettyfogging is a word was seen as too much back in the 1900s. he said we may not make that bar with you but we aspire to be better to one another. you look up the etymology of that word and you can understand why they didn't want it on the senate floor. only one vote todayn't 53-47 and it was a really nothing amendment and it was about how much time you get to respond to a motion by one side. it's interesting that the final amendment before the resolution vote which was to allow the chief justice to negotiate disputes on any witness calls, that you would think maybe if a republican was going to cross the line it would be in his favor. now the senators are filing out. it's been a long day. they've got to be back tomorrow at 1:00. there's other business they have to attend to. the chief justice is due in court in just about six hours to do the business of the supreme court. we're trying to get some
reporting about what it was like in that room. we're going to try to get one of the senators for you here. hilary rosen, as michael said, and you have to see it this way, tomorrow will look a lot like today. that is difficult because you don't want it to sound like it did today to people because it makes it seem like you don't have anything else to say. >> right. there was a little bit of a flurry today when the senators went to their private respective luncheons that potentially some of the republicans were going to revolt against mitch mcconnell's strict rules. that ended up not happening. as you said, the parry line votes continued all through the -- chuck schumer's amendments to change the rules, to open up this trial, to be more accommodating of additional facts and witnesses and documents, importantly documents. so i think what we have now is kind of a bit of anti-climactic
activity tomorrow because now we will see tomorrow go pretty much the way the country's been expecting it to go, which is that the republicans are going to, you know, insist that there's nothing here for the president to be punished for and the democrats are going to once again make that same case that they made today in the house. but without new witnesses, without new facts, without new documents it is going to be a bit of a repeat. and i think we'll see over the next 24, 36 hours whether the public is upset about these senate votes today to withhold witnesses, to withhold documents. >> so now you have the strategy at play. and the first line of attack is well, this isn't as fair as clinton was. and ordinarily in politics you like to stay away from looking to the past to justify why you're okay in the present. often it shows a weakness of position. but here it's about procedure. so let's get some minds on this.
we have jimmy schultz and we have renato mariotti here. and michael zelden. three good legal minds about this type of situation. renato, let me bring you in tonight. the idea of this isn't as fair as clinton was. but let's see. you have the dividing of the hours over how many days. fine. there's a point to that. but really it's about witnesses. and witnesses were voted on after the opening arguments in that impeachment trial as well. what is the argument that it should be different this time? >> well, in the impeachment trial there's no real question about what happened, chris. everyone knew that president clinton had lied and directed others to lie about his relationship with monica lewinsky. the question here is really we still haven't gotten to the bottom of what has happened. there are still questions being raised. there's mr. parnas and others making allegations on this
network and others. we don't really know all the details of what happened. we haven't heard from a lot of the witnesses. and i think that's really what makes this a different situation. >> jim, the idea that the witnesses in clinton, all three of them already on the record. mr. starr as independent counsel, now a member of president trump's defense team. he interviewed like everybody who'd ever even heard of the situation. so there was such a complete record you that don't have here. is that a meaningful distinction to you? >> i don't think it's a meaningful distinction at all. i think it was mike purpura or it might have been cipollone that made the argument that it's not the job of the senate to do the job of the house. the house in this case didn't do their job. and that's a real problem here. and they rushed to judgment on everything and it was done in a partisan manner and nadler said years ago this should never be done in a partisan manner. that's just indicative of the way they've handled it from day one. now they just want to whine, whine, whine about not having witnesses at this trial. the problem is they didn't develop the factual record when
they could have. and you can say all day long, well, there was obstruction by the white house on this. there's a mechanism for that. and they said, with the, it's going to take too long. well, guess what? that's what the justice process calls for. to go to court and fight over subpoenas and fight over these issues. and they weren't willing to even have the fight. in bolton's case they weren't even willing to call him or subpoena him -- >> no, that's -- hold on, jimmy. that's not -- hold on. that's not accurate. schiff argued what happened there, and it was not rebutted by the other side. and that's usually a good indication that he had it right, which was when they were told by bolton's counsel that i am going to sue you if you subpoena, they decided not to do it because it was one more in a pattern of restriction of access. so let me take the question to michael zel michael zeldin -- >> did they subpoena him then -- >> they did not because they were told what was going to happen. and the point because -- >> so let's just tloip our hands
and forget about justice, forget about the court system -- >> jim, don't get so high-minded about justice. you pointed out that jerry nadler used to argue the opposite. they all did. lindsey graham used to argue the opposite as he does now. mcconnell opposite -- >> this is a political process -- >> but when you cherry-pick it, you become part of that process. here try to be above it. michael, let me bring you in on this. the idea that the house didn't do its job versus the house wasn't allowed to do its job and the idea that the courts are the proper avenue of recourse for deciding whether or not congress has oversight powers. that's what the question is. it's not typical litigation, michael, where you and i have a good faith disagreement. when congress subpoenas somebody, it is not like every subpoena gets litigated, right? >> exactly right. a couple of things. first is the house has established a substantial record in respect of each those
articles of impeachment. there is a fulsome record upon which the senate could vote to impeach on the articles as they were. what the house has said is we were not allowed to get access to these additional witnesses and these additional documents, so you the senate, who has the sole power to try this case, should conduct a trial and you should use your subpoena subpoena power to get that which we couldn't get. that's what the senate majority is refusing to do. they're refusing to conduct a trial to augment or to find disagreement with what the house came forward with in their hearing. so this notion that they should have gone to court, they shouldn't -- this is basic blocking and tackling for the senate. when they want to have witnesses, they know how to subpoena them and they should subpoena them because they are the trial body here. the house was the indicting party. the senate is the trial party. and they should bring in witnesses to let them reach a
conclusion whether the president did anything legal, illegal, wrong, impeachable and let it be decided on the merits of the evidence that they bring forth. they're not willing to do that. that's a shameful act. >> let's bring in garrett graf on this. it's interesting. you know who the gop senators should be upset at is the white house because they put them in this box by blocking access to all these people. now they do have to deal with it. and they've got the rules the way they want through votes but we'll see how it goes forward. what's your take on this dynamic? >> one of the sort of important points to raise in the context of why the house moved quickly on impeachment, adam schiff made the point tonight, this is an ongoing conspiracy that the house democrats were trying to arrest. the fundamental underlying charges in this case deal with the president's attempt to bring foreign interference into the future 2020 election. so this is something that is still unfolding and tha